>> You think I'm an diot for showing that you are unable quote anything >> that I said that supports your claim of oversimplification? Or are you >> just trying to draw attention away from your apparent attempt to >> mislead the readers? > >On MANY occasions you discount what happens at the turnaround because >you only look at time dilation and not relativity of simultaneity. >The ONLY equations you use are those of time dilation. THAT is an >oversimplification.
Actually, with the correct statement of time dilation, time dilation is all you need to solve most of the problems involving clocks, twins, etc.
The correct statement is this: As measured in any standard INERTIAL coordinate system, the elapsed time T on a moving clock satisfies
dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
Colp's mistake, which has been explained to him over and over, is that this formula relates *elapsed time* on one clock to *coordinate* time in a standard inertial coordinate system. It does *not* relate elapsed times on two different clocks.
I don't think it's correct that colp is oversimplifying; he's just not applying SR. He's applying some other theory of his own invention (of course, it is *derived* from SR, as filtered through his incompetence, but the end result is not SR, but a new, provably inconsistent theory As for calling it an oversimplification to use just the time dilation formula, I don't completely agree, because time dilation *implies* the other relativistic effects, such as the relativity of simultaneity. If you try to set up a coordinate system using time-dilated clocks then you will end up with clocks that are out of synch, as viewed from a coordinate system in which those clocks are moving.
Colp is not oversimplifying, he's just being an incompetent. Exactly like Koobee Wublee and Androcles. They are incompetents who project their own incompetence onto others---any nonsense that comes from their incompetence they blame on Einstein.